The MTH Triplex has arrived.
http://www.tonystrains.com/tonystips/2007/123107.htm
That should be a painful swat at MTH's backside. Personally, I don't care one way or another, but for the sake of the hobby I hope they can fix this and continue to do reasonably well. I also think they should offer non-DCS locos at savings for those who want to operate their engines with a DCC decoder installed.
Nice looking model, and the fix should be relatively easy.
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=5959
If one could roll back the hands of time... They would be waiting for the next train into the future. A. H. Francey 1921-2007
selector wrote: That should be a painful swat at MTH's backside. Personally, I don't care one way or another, but for the sake of the hobby I hope they can fix this and continue to do reasonably well. I also think they should offer non-DCS locos at savings for those who want to operate their engines with a DCC decoder installed.Nice looking model, and the fix should be relatively easy.
The fix as you said should be fairly easy. Some brass models needed some extra play to the articulated joint also to negotiate curves.
The DCS issue continues to come up but this model will run on DCC in addition to DCS or DC according to the advertisement. My complaint is I have the MTH DCS system purchased for my #1 scale Challenger and the Daylight, but it will not run the new HO version. MTH has two versions of the DCS system and they are not compatible.
Fergmiester wrote:Interesting article, very informative actually. Thanks for sharing. Quite a dig at MTH but unfortunately it rings true especially as a lot of people, organizations and industry came together to develope a universal and standard system. Kinda like all the Railroads using "standard guage" don't cha think
It is a dig, but the pilot model should have been checked out before it was sent to a major dealer that reviews on line.
It is a nice looking model and probably can be fixed by increasing the amount of play in the connecting articulating connection.
I skipped the MTH K4 since the DCS system I own will not run the HO version of the DCS.
I think that the issue surrounding the wheels lifting off the track and derailing is a far more serious one as compared to the "electrics" inside - at least they function to some extent in DCC or in DC. If this IS a quality issue and not just an isolated incident, it is NOT impressive.
The same thing happened with the long-awaited Intermountain AC12 - how on earth an experienced manufacturer like IM can release an expensive bit if kit that has totally obvious and serious running and gearing problems is beyond me. But I bought two anyway...
Just my two-bobs' worth (British language version of the US standard phrase).
Brian
Brian M wrote: I think that the issue surrounding the wheels lifting off the track and derailing is a far more serious one as compared to the "electrics" inside - at least they function to some extent in DCC or in DC. If this IS a quality issue and not just an isolated incident, it is NOT impressive. The same thing happened with the long-awaited Intermountain AC12 - how on earth an experienced manufacturer like IM can release an expensive bit if kit that has totally obvious and serious running and gearing problems is beyond me. But I bought two anyway... Just my two-bobs' worth (British language version of the US standard phrase).Brian
You are right about the Intermountain AC12 but most of us purchased it since it is a very popular model and the Southern Pacific had 195 early and late Cab Forwards.
The Intermountain omitted the sprung drivers also which makes it derail very easy if the trackwork is uneven or not close to perfect.
The MTH Triplex model that was reviewed is probably a pilot model sent out to dealers prior to the production shipment being released. This problem found in the review might be corrected in the production model.
If I got that model as is, I would prolly file around the limiting location that prevents the model from the raised wheels. For DCS, I would just swap out their DCS and put DCC in. For the sound, if it needs DSC, forget it. Depends if if they have the sounds directly tied to what the model is.
I wont care about the smoke option. It needs to be true DCC compatible.
Hi all,
CAZEPHYR wrote:The DCS issue continues to come up but this model will run on DCC in addition to DCS or DC according to the advertisement. My complaint is I have the MTH DCS system purchased for my #1 scale Challenger and the Daylight, but it will not run the new HO version. MTH has two versions of the DCS system and they are not compatible.
I'm confused as to why some are saying that the MTH dual mode decoder (DCS and DCC) is not truly DCC compatible. I've only been running DCC for about 2 years (NCE Pro Cab) and my MTH K4's work very well as far as I can tell. I have had no prblems programming or operating. I know you can't use a programming track, you have to program on the main. Is this a big issue for some? Other an that my only complaint about DCC operations has been that I can't access all the features that are available in DCS, but that's because the K4 has more adjustable features than any DCC system can access. So, are there other things that people have a problem with, or is it distain for MTH products in general?
CAZEPHYR, your mistaken about DCS not working with the K4 or Triplex. I have two of the MTH K4's and run them both under DCS and DCC. I have an original DCS set from 2002 and it works perfectly as long as you have software version 3.00 or later.
I have a Triplex on order, but it hasn't arrived yet. When it does I'll post here wheather or not the clearance issue Tony's sited has been fixed or not.
M.T.H. is aware of the "lift" issues reported in Tony's overview of our HO Triplex steam locomotive. The problem has been traced to the pilot steam pipe. This detail piece slides back and forth and can come out of its receiving receptacle during handling or shipment. When the pipe comes out of its receptacle it can cause the rear drivers of the front drive train to lift off the rails resulting in either derailments or loss of tractive effort.An addendum to the Operator's Manual has been created and posted online as a PDF download from the M.T.H. HO website. The solution to resolve the lifting problem is to simply reinsert the steam pipe into its receptacle. The operator's manual addendum details how to accomplish this task. You'll find the addendum on page 29 of the online PDF operator's manual. You can find that manual by clicking here.
Tony's review also did not refer to an exciting new feature we've included in the Triplex that allows the user to "play" the locomotive's whistle. Steam locomotive engineer's often quilled a locomotive's whistle by pulling on the whistle's pull cord with different levels of tension. Such action resulted in different melodies of the whistle sound and often identified a specific engineer by his "signature" whistle.
The Triplex comes equipped with both a standard whistle blast (with three different endings triggered by the amount of time a whistle button is depressed) and the quillable whistle feature. In addition, there are crossing signals included in the Triplex that can be triggered with a single button push. Unlike the standard whistle blast, the quillable and crossing signals are only accessible via the M.T.H. DCS Remote System (Item no. 50-1001) and the all-new DCS Commander (Item no. 50-1028 and 50-1029).
In the case of the quillable whistle feature, we've found the DCC protocol to simply be too slow to trigger this feature. The quillable effect is generated by the user's movement of the thumbwheels found on the DCS Remote or the DCS Commander. The whistle sound responds with different pitches based on the thumbwheel's rotation by the user. In order to have the whistle respond instantly to the rotation of the thumbwheel, the DCS signal protocol is required. In addition, because we trigger these effects using the thumbwheel, we need control devices that utilize a thumbwheel. Because there are such wide controller discrepancies found in the various DCC controllers on the market today, we couldn't come up with a method that would ensure such a feature would be consistently accessible from one controller to the next.
Features like the quillable whistle are important to M.T.H.'s vision of bringing more fun and excitement to model railroading, whether it be in HO, O or G gauges. As these features become more and more apparent to the HO market, we believe the marketplace will begin to see the value of DCS as an option to DCC. Until then, users can access up to 28 features found in our HO locomotives via any DCC system equipped to access that many features.
dave hikel wrote: Hi all, CAZEPHYR wrote:The DCS issue continues to come up but this model will run on DCC in addition to DCS or DC according to the advertisement. My complaint is I have the MTH DCS system purchased for my #1 scale Challenger and the Daylight, but it will not run the new HO version. MTH has two versions of the DCS system and they are not compatible. So, are there other things that people have a problem with, or is it distain for MTH products in general? CAZEPHYR, your mistaken about DCS not working with the K4 or Triplex. I have two of the MTH K4's and run them both under DCS and DCC. I have an original DCS set from 2002 and it works perfectly as long as you have software version 3.00 or later.
So, are there other things that people have a problem with, or is it distain for MTH products in general?
I like my #1 scale DCS system and the Challenger and have no disdain for MTH. When the HO model came out, I emailed MTH and received the reply back from them that my system would not work with the HO K4 model. The sound from the DCS system for the Challenger and Daylight is absolutely the best anywhere except for the 1 to 1 real prototype.
I have the 2.0 version, but was told by MTH in an email my unit would not work with the HO model K4. I have many PRR locomotives but skipped the MTH K4 since their email told me it would not run with my present DCS system. I have not tried to update my DCS unit but will contact MTH again to see if that is possible. I do use it to run the #1 scale Challenger and Daylight as is.
Thanks for the information. I will contact MTH again to see if my unit can be updated to run the # 1 scale and the newer HO models that require the 3.0 version software.
amedleman wrote: Features like the quillable whistle are important to M.T.H.'s vision of bringing more fun and excitement to model railroading, whether it be in HO, O or G gauges. As these features become more and more apparent to the HO market, we believe the marketplace will begin to see the value of DCS as an option to DCC. Until then, users can access up to 28 features found in our HO locomotives via any DCC system equipped to access that many features.
Andy
I have been advised in this forum that my older DCS system can be used for HO if the software is updated to Version 3.0. Do I have to send it back or can that be done with my computer?? I have the DCS 2.0 that I purchased with my #1 scale Challenger.
Thanks
Hi CAZEPHYR,
You can update the software in your TIU and remote yourself with your home computer. I did a tutorial on how to use the DCS Loader program for the OGR forum and MTH has now copied it to their website. You can find the Loader program, the software updates (version 3.11 currently), and my tutorial here: www.protosound2.com
If you have any trouble you can e-mail me: davehikel@hotmail.com
My earlier question about why some feel the the MTH locomotives aren't DCC compatible was addressed to the forum emebers in general. As I said I've only been using DCC for a couple years, but I've become quite familiar with my NCE system as well as Digitrax, which is used by a friend. There are curtain things I can only do under DCS because it has more features than DCC can operate. Is that what people mean or am missing something by being a relative newbie to DCC?
The quillable whistle is a nice surprise Andy! I didn't relise the Triplex was going to have that feature. That makes it the first engine MTH has released with that feature. The O gauge guys will be soooo jealous!
I figured with the front engine unpowered and the emphasis on the wonderful smoke unit I would pass on this engine.
To learn that front engine is incapable of following grade and incline changes is not good news at all.
I would want a full DCC engine, not one that requires a specific manufacter issued control system that may or may not provide all the functions.
They did a wonderful job but for the 500 dollars you think these things will be uber perfect in looks and performance including all sets powered.
Good review but I think they need to calm down on the blingage and focus on good solid track performance and compatibility with ALL DCC systems on the market today.
Falls Valley,
M.T.H. HO locomotives can be operated with any DCC controller and have more command features than any other manufacturer's HO locomotives currently on the market. The sticking point for some individuals is that we have not included access to some DCC features that other manufacturers include in their locomotives. As a result, our products are deemed "less than DCC" by those who desire such control. Regardless, one should not construe that you need M.T.H.'s controller to operate our locomotives in command mode. Should you utilize one of our systems to do so, you'll gain access to hundreds of different sounds and features compared to the two dozen or so you can access with the most advanced DCC system.
The Triplex does indeed feature a powered front drive train. The tender drive train is not powered. The Triplex does not suffer from slippage on grades. As was pointed out in my earlier post, the slippage issues were the result of the front steam pipe coming out of its recepatcle either from handling or shipping. We've only received a few inquiries from others who have purchased the Triplex regarding this issue, so we don't think the steam pipe issue is widespread. Since the fix is simple, bringing the locomotive back to specs is easily handled by the hobbiest himself.
Falls Valley RR wrote:I would want a full DCC engine,
I would want a full DCC engine,
This is the kind of comment I was asking about. Falls Valley RR, what function of DCC do the MTH engines not support? As I said, I have an NCE Pro Cab system and it works fine. Are there features of other DCC systems that my NCE doesn't have that the MTH engines don't support?
I know the engine has to be programmed on the main, but thats never been a problem for me. What am I missing here?
There is always considerable risk undertaken by someone who offers to interpret what another person has said, so I offer my interpretation with some temerity. I think what DCC operators would like in DCS engines, is to be able to operate all the MTH functions, but not to have to purchase the DCS operating system. DCC operators don't have to buy BLI's proprietary software and system, they just buy the DCC system of their choice..and find, to their pleasure, that the same system will operate Walther's decodered engine offerings, and Atlas', and so on. It is only with MTH that one must shell out for a whole nuther system.
If I am correct, I believe this is the general complaint, not just Falls Valley's.
I appreciate the responses in defense to my previous post and about the engine itself.
I feel that it would be best for me to withhold further thoughts until MR releases a video showing the engine actually operating or perhaps another person who uploads a good quality video to you tube or similar showing the model in operation.
amedleman wrote: Falls Valley,M.T.H. HO locomotives can be operated with any DCC controller and have more command features than any other manufacturer's HO locomotives currently on the market. The sticking point for some individuals is that we have not included access to some DCC features that other manufacturers include in their locomotives. As a result, our products are deemed "less than DCC" by those who desire such control. Regardless, one should not construe that you need M.T.H.'s controller to operate our locomotives in command mode. Should you utilize one of our systems to do so, you'll gain access to hundreds of different sounds and features compared to the two dozen or so you can access with the most advanced DCC system.The Triplex does indeed feature a powered front drive train. The tender drive train is not powered. The Triplex does not suffer from slippage on grades. As was pointed out in my earlier post, the slippage issues were the result of the front steam pipe coming out of its recepatcle either from handling or shipping. We've only received a few inquiries from others who have purchased the Triplex regarding this issue, so we don't think the steam pipe issue is widespread. Since the fix is simple, bringing the locomotive back to specs is easily handled by the hobbiest himself.
All this is very nice, Andy, but there are a lot of us who were and are wondering what MTH was thinking in bringing out the Erie Triplex. I can think of a lot of engines that would be welcomed by the hobby to one degree or another, but the Triplex isn't on the list. I realize MTH has the drawings and it's easier to design a loco for which you already have the drawings, but aren't there some other engines that would have been more profitable for MTH to make?
How about some Harriman Mikados (UP, SP, IC) or Harriman Pacifics (either light or heavy)?
For that matter, how's about getting away from the monster locos and producing some more layout friendly engines like 2-6-0's, 2-8-0's, 4-6-0's, Mikes, Pacifics and Atlantics?
Andre
Just came home from the Amherst Railway Society show at Springfield, MA. Tony's Train Exchange had the Triplex running at their booth. It does look nice, it was running on a simple table top loop but it seemed to be a smooth runner. I thought it somewhat odd that the Triplex was at TTE but I didn't see it at MTH's booth. I may have missed it at MTH, the show was a bit of a mad house today. How can one see when you're jostling with other people for any kind of view of product display?
MTH may have taken a Tim Allen/Home Improvement approach in bringing out the Triplex; if a pair of driving wheels is good, three is even better. It is interesting to watch and per TTE review the detail is very impressive. In spite of its lack of real world success I think this model could win some hearts just because of its uniqueness. Of course not being able to access all its capabilities via DCC is another point to be considered when purchase decision is being made.
Jon
jondrd wrote: Just came home from the Amherst Railway Society show at Springfield, MA. Tony's Train Exchange had the Triplex running at their booth. It does look nice, it was running on a simple table top loop but it seemed to be a smooth runner. I thought it somewhat odd that the Triplex was at TTE but I didn't see it at MTH's booth. I may have missed it at MTH, the show was a bit of a mad house today. How can one see when you're jostling with other people for any kind of view of product display? Jon
Thanks for the update on the Triplex. It probably will sell very well since it is very unique and has always been very expensive as a brass only locomotive for many years. I was suprised that the Triplex model only has two powered sets of drivers, but the MTH models have been smooth runners and worth a look.
Now I am curious what they will bring in next. I hope it is the S2 PRR Turbine or a Yellowstone that everyone has been asking for so many years.
Give me a 2-8-8-4 in DM&IR colors please!
jondrd wrote: Just came home from the Amherst Railway Society show at Springfield, MA. Tony's Train Exchange had the Triplex running at their booth. It does look nice, it was running on a simple table top loop but it seemed to be a smooth runner. I thought it somewhat odd that the Triplex was at TTE but I didn't see it at MTH's booth. I may have missed it at MTH, the show was a bit of a mad house today. How can one see when you're jostling with other people for any kind of view of product display? MTH may have taken a Tim Allen/Home Improvement approach in bringing out the Triplex; if a pair of driving wheels is good, three is even better. It is interesting to watch and per TTE review the detail is very impressive. In spite of its lack of real world success I think this model could win some hearts just because of its uniqueness. Of course not being able to access all its capabilities via DCC is another point to be considered when purchase decision is being made. Jon
That's sure why I want to save for the triplex! But then, I have a habit of bizarre stuff.
-Morgan
Falls Valley RR wrote:So, all three sets of driving wheels powered then?
I have read that the rear engine under the tender is a trailer and not powered.
DCS or DCC whoopie, I could care less about, I'm strictly DC. However I understand that the driver lifting was caused by a simple problem--the piping above the first set of drivers hadn't been snapped in properly. Man, you'd think Tony would have discovered that right off! I mean, they HAVE seen a steam locomotive, haven't they?
Reports I've read on the Triplex from guys who've bought them are pretty positive. Driver lifting? Snap the pipes in properly. Whoah, no-brainer!
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
twhite wrote: DCS or DCC whoopie, I could care less about, I'm strictly DC. However I understand that the driver lifting was caused by a simple problem--the piping above the first set of drivers hadn't been snapped in properly. Man, you'd think Tony would have discovered that right off! I mean, they HAVE seen a steam locomotive, haven't they?Reports I've read on the Triplex from guys who've bought them are pretty positive. Driver lifting? Snap the pipes in properly. Whoah, no-brainer!Tom
maybe. But if you hadn't heard the response from MTH, would you be looking for the 1 rod as the issue?
mdtell wrote:I have the Triplex and it runs beautifully. I have one nit to pick with the sound system - you cannot have the coupler slack sound operate when the engine starts moving if the bell is ringing. You have to trigger the bell as soon as the engnine starts moving. I also note that no matter how long I sound the whistle there are no different endings to be heard. My K-4 has the different endings so it may be that because the whistle is quilable perhaps the different endings can only be heard on dcs. I'd appreciate hearing if anyone else does not get different whistle endings with the Black Box or full dcc.
I have one nit to pick with the sound system - you cannot have the coupler slack sound operate when the engine starts moving if the bell is ringing. You have to trigger the bell as soon as the engnine starts moving. I also note that no matter how long I sound the whistle there are no different endings to be heard. My K-4 has the different endings so it may be that because the whistle is quilable perhaps the different endings can only be heard on dcs. I'd appreciate hearing if anyone else does not get different whistle endings with the Black Box or full dcc.
mdtell
The bell and the coupler issue is identical to my #1 scale DCS system. You can do either one, but not both at the same time. I normally hit the coupler function and then turn on the bell while starting. It is a matter of how many inputs the amplifiers has and these two functions are on the same input.
Is the rear set of drivers under the tender powered??????????
Just wondering.'
Flashwave wrote: twhite wrote: DCS or DCC whoopie, I could care less about, I'm strictly DC. However I understand that the driver lifting was caused by a simple problem--the piping above the first set of drivers hadn't been snapped in properly. Man, you'd think Tony would have discovered that right off! I mean, they HAVE seen a steam locomotive, haven't they?Reports I've read on the Triplex from guys who've bought them are pretty positive. Driver lifting? Snap the pipes in properly. Whoah, no-brainer!Tom maybe. But if you hadn't heard the response from MTH, would you be looking for the 1 rod as the issue?
Actually, yes. If the first set of drivers hangs up on an articulated, it's usually because of mis-aligned piping. Just set the loco on a piece of glass, lever the first driver set back and forth and watch where it catches.